[WEB4LIB] RE: Web Page Width - To Restrict or Not to Restrict

[Brandon Dennis]

>As another large window user, whenever I see a page that's half wasted
>space, I take it to mean the design work lacked effort, consideration,
>or a clue (or some combination thereof).

>Conversely, there's little to match horizontal scrolling for annoying
>users and driving them to other web sites.
 
I thought I'd add my (not very valuable) opinion to this because I'm
reviewing the same thing currently (this is a discussion that comes up
often in other web design / css lists as well).  My primary job (before
the library) was designing high end web sites since approximately 1995.
 
In general, it seems that the easiest way to design a consistent site
for overall user experience is to _limit_ the width to approximately 780
pixels.  This most likely has changed a bit, but back in the day
Netscape Navigator scrollbars on the sides account for 12, while AOL
double side bars were very close to 20 pixels of space.
 
I agree that CSS has opened a lot of flexibility in the liquid design
layout, however, it depends on how you're designing your site.  If
you're blending blocks of text along with spliced graphic navigation,
allowing a dynamic width can cause some trouble with the display.  This
is even a large issue now that people are running at resolutions of
1600x1200 and more.
 
Designing with standards (and IE hacks for the M$) and restricting the
width ensures two primary functions:
1.  The site will display and perform exactly as designed.
2.  The readability will be consistent.
 
I don't have a link to the "How Users Read On The Web" report that was
done by Sun(?) a couple years ago, but one of the primary issues with
reading online was flow of content and length of the line.  It's a lot
easier to lose your place on a monitor.  So if you consider the design
for 780 width and someone views it maximized at 1280x1024 it nearly
doubles the width of every content box on your page.  That can also
cause more issues with the graphic design layout as well.  And you have
to consider that now or in the future you will have visitors that are
browsing at even larger resolutions.  Backgrounds can repeat
unexpectedly (css can fix that, of course), <div> blocks can suddenly
wrap to the end of a previous section (if not well planned), and the
graphics can gain spaces or other strange problems.
 
Dynamic sizing can be fantastic as long as it fits your purpose and you
plan, plan, plan.  That allows people, like myself as well, who browse
at high resolutions to adjust the browser to a size that works well
instead of "forcing" that decision.  It's just a question of how many
people are saavy (or energetic) enough to do so.
 
While Fixed Width can treat the site much more like a prepared brochure.
Paper size is always the same, so all readers will be presented with it
in the same format.
 
Last thing I'd say is that personally, my way of browsing.  I like
having non-maximized browsers open to about an 800 size so I can see
parts of my desktop (or multiple windows).  It's easier to read/view and
comprehend at approximately 800 pixel width web page than it is a 1200+
width web page.  I love the screen real estate but I use it more to
focus on multiple items, not one very large item.  With the popularity
of scroll wheels and such, I find it much easier to "roll" through a
page vertically and take in chunks of information at once, than to get
the "poster sized" version.
 
Brandon